Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses

[Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>]

On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:24:45 -0400
Ben Jencks <ben () bjencks net> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 00:58, David Conrad <drc () virtualized org> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> > > > My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
> > > > less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
> > > That claim seems to be unsupported by current experience.   Please elaborate.
> >
> > Currently, most residential customers have PA+NATv4, where the CPE provides the public IPv4 address to the NATv4 
> > box (which might be the same box as the CPE) via DHCP (or PPPoE). As such, all internal devices are shielded from 
> > all renumbering events.  In a NATless PA world, all devices will need to be renumbered on a change of provider.  
> > While in theory, address lifetimes and multiple addresses should reduce the impact renumbering might have, I will 
> > admit some skepticism that renumbering IPv6 providers will be sufficiently transparent as customers are used to 
> > with IPv4 PA+NATv4. Perhaps I am wrong.
>
> No "average residential user" should ever see or configure an IPv6
> address; all the vendors are using zeroconf etc. to avoid it at all
> costs. If it was all autoconfigured in the first place, there's no
> reason autoconfiguration shouldn't be able to renumber it.

+1

> -Ben